Foreshore and Magna Carta

[Newt]

Rockhopper:

Wot about tidal structures such as breakwaters. We can access a local breakwater across public land but i assumme the breakwater is a private streucture and hence fishing is being restricted.

Was hoping someone with local knowledge would give you an answer here.

 

On my side of the pond, breakwaters tend to be public rather than private. Built by a govt. agency. Private owners can put them in but only with permissions and it is fairly rare.

[chesters1]

were so bullied over here newt if the council (that strange collective of public servants??? paid by taxes from the people ,who also pay for the works as well) it still is considered as private and only with their concent (usually grudgingly given if at all) can we use it ,even public car parks built on land belonging to the council ( remember its really us ) using public funding (taxes) and run by public employees (paid by taxes) are still private property and unless a footpath runs through it your not allowed to use it unless its for the purpose of car parking (again paid for by the taxpayer in fees on top of the initial taxes used to plan build and run it ) you are not allowed to use it

[Chris Goddard]

I think the case for a "Public right of way" would be a path or access that the public has enjoyed unfettered or restricted access for ten years clear. We have a situation on our lake whereby the public are denied access for one day every 5 yearsI think?) to therefore deny a public right of way.

At the end of the day if these path's etc., are adopted by the local council (As they should be!) the council is then legally bound to keep the path in a condition whereby the people may enjoy access over that land. I.E.they have to shell out to keep the weeds down, resurface etc. Councils do not want to do this!! It costs money!! Money that they do not have and money that you and I would have to provide via. an(other!!) increase in rates/poll tax/council tax etc., etc.

 

Chris

[chesters1]

our kids used to use a shortcut to their school (built in the forties) there was even a gate provided through the fence , half the old part of the school was sold (the origanal forties huts) the new owners fenced along the new boundary which also included the gate (its still there on the new schools land built in the early fifties) fencing it off made my kids walk an extra 1/4 mile along an unpathed busy road , i complained to the council planning and other depts about this and was warned as the new owners were a religeous sect there was not a lot they could do as a lot of things in law that aply to us dont apply to religeous groups their land and buildings etc and as they were from a far off land near india and next to afghanistan it would be best to shut up and not stir ill feelings and this was in 1989 long before the troubles with indias neighbours even flagrent disobediance of health and safety law ,building regs and planning regs are ignored ,what can a ordinary person do

i could fill this site with pics of open sewers (used in their meetings ) extremly dodgy wiring used in domestic situations but out in the open etc etc all were sent in printed and digital forms to the council depts concerned all were ignored and it remains

 

[ 16. January 2003, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[wirral sea fishing]

chesters1:

it is a good thread ,can anyone enlighten me on a similar subject ,when does a footpath become a footpath ? i know if its not on the "definative" map its not a footpath officially but where does the "definitive" footpaths come from   :confused:   .

are they paths that have been in use for years? if so how many?

if for instance a "footpath" has been in use for say 100 years can it go on the "definitive" map??? or is there another criteria rather than use ???

if a path after XX years becomes a official footpath then why isnt a beach a VERY wide footpath along the coast    

Hi Chesters,

Dunno if this will help or shed any light, but we have a local Golf Course, and for the whole of my life or at least the bits a remember there has been access to the beach, this is used daily by Anglers collecting bait, people walking dogs and in general people going to the beach, anyway last year they erracted a nice new fence, but with the gate that had alsways been there now part of the fence IE the access closed, now the land that the golf course sits on is also land that our local Castle sits on (handy to have a castle around) and was infact part of the srategic sea defence with little concrete huts dotted around as well as an old Gun Site (Akk Akk), so back to this castle, as with all castles they have been around a long time and without going in to the history old plans o the land ownwership and so on clearly showed that there was a right of way - hence the gate that had been there for many years.... now the Golf Course claimed that 10 years ago they did a deal with the local council, giving them land in return for some off them, the truth is we would have all been underwater now if it had not have been done !! anyway in this deal they claimed that they asked for a new map to be drawn up and to show that there was NO access to the foreshore, this was never done as there was a bit of a battle, but the golf course decieded that they where right and built the fence, enter stage left a really old bloke 80+ who then put water on the fire, he claimed that him and at least 20 others had used the path for 10 years on a daily basis to accdess the foreshore and during this time NO action had been taken to stop them, they obviosll counter claimed the old gent who in turn submitted a full report including names and address's of those that had used the path ,he obtained these by standing at the bottom of the road and asked all the people that had attempted to use the path a few questions, the result HE WON and they had to put an opening back in the fence... hence we now use it regular, there is also another argument going on where the council have allowed the development of a ferry terminal, closing a public right of way as well as a very good fishing venue...

[Guest sslatter]

So "Poledark"? Remember that 'sea trout central' confluence of those two rivers that we've fished? The one we chatted about? The one that is inaccessible by bank, because of an island on the north bank side, and private land on the south bank? According to what I've read here, I can take a boat up the river, anchor right in the confluence, and fish for those giant sea trout (suitably licenced of course) without any recourse. I wonder how the angling club (north bank) and the landowner (south bank) would take it?

 

[ 17. January 2003, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Graham X ]

[MrWiggly]

Interesting point here from Graham ...

 

I have often seen people fishing off narrow boats, barges etc. in the centre of the canal/river, whilst both banks have either been privately owned, or been "pegged out" for some fishing club or organisation.

 

What is the legal standing in the situation ?

 

After all, the ownership is of the banks only, isn't it ? Or do they own half of the river width as well ?

 

 

Any comments ?

[poledark]

Mr Wiggly, the landowners own the bed of the river half way across if only owning one bank, all the way across if owning both banks.

 

Graham, sorry mate but I don't know what you are talking about!

 

Den

[Newt]

But in the US you'd be correct. No one can own the rivers so only the banks can be blocked from use. Same with lakes. If there is ANY part of the shore that is public, the entire water area is public.

 

Which is one reason you see so many fresh water boat anglers over here.

 

I think the rules for tidal sections of UK rivers are similar to US rules though.

 

[ 18. January 2003, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: Newt ]

[MrWiggly]

That's a shame ....

 

Better sell my narrowboat then ...